Your classic pair [of traditional ballet pointe shoes] can last anywhere from a couple of weeks to a couple of days…The American Ballet Theatre in New York City sets aside $350,000 for pointe shoes per season, about $7,500 per ballerina…Most of the shoes purchased for Ballet Tucson come from Freed of London, an established British pointe shoe maker since 1929.
— excerpted from the article En Pointe Takes Toll on Shoes
I don’t mean to sound ridiculously naive here, but if good ballet shoes cost $50-100, and professional ballerinas completely destroy a pair in less than a week, and most of these shoes are being made by (ostensibly) a handful of companies who have been making the shoes since the early 20th century (ostensibly) in the same fashion, doesn’t it stand to reason that someone needs to design a better ballet shoe?
unreasonable? Yes.
Wasteful? Yes.
Poor design? Yes.
Unexpected? No.
1929 was just about the time when a great deal of companies discovered that they could make a great deal more money by creating products with planned obsolescence. A great example of this would be something like the razor. when was the last time you bought a top of the line razor? For most people, it’s been a while, because they know that as soon as they do, they’ll come out with a 6 bladed razor with lotioned pads that hands you money as you shave. Think about it: if they made better shoes, it would take more time, more capital, and more money. They’re making a killing as they are. Demand side, your argument makes a lot of sense, but from the standpoint of supply side economics, they have no reason to change designs. They’ve cornered the market, and no two-bit hotshot designer is going to be able to edge into their customer base.
said Adam Rowlett
at 3:43pm on Sunday
A good designer, who offers a well-designed, cheaper, longer lasting product or service could certainly do that. It seems silly to say they couldn’t simply because “it’s always been done this way.”
Of course the suppliers of the current product have no incentive to change, to offer a better product, or to put money into research and development — that’s a losing proposition for them. But someone will. Or at least should. It seems like a wide open market with no competitors ripe for competition.
said Joshua
I suppose the point that I was making wasn’t that such products couldn’t be made, just that it’s unlikely for a startup to garner the support necessary to do so. Small companies (like one starting out with a new product, even if it is better) too often get eaten up in this too-big world by the big players in the market. Buyouts, patent purchases, and lack of initial funding are the unfortunately all too common fates for most. Not saying it couldn’t happen, just that for whoever makes the better product, it’s a long uphill fight to really take control of the market.
said Adam Rowlett
at 7:06pm on Sunday
(In a gruff voice) Here. Here. New shoes are in order! Yes, indeed!
said Kelly
at 9:03pm on Sunday
It is quite a design problem, actually. Reasons I think it hasn’t been solved yet:
1) The people with the advanced design know-how and creativity necessary to solve such an issue don’t have a) any knowledge of/interest in the problem and/or b) the resources – capital, connections, time, etc. to make something new succeed both functionally and in terms of market share. Especially since the ballet world isn’t really where anyone goes to make a killing financially.
2) The culture of the ballet world is significantly unique. Unique enough to put kinks in the normal free-market-economics-based logic that informs the idea that someone could just come up with a new design and make bank by undercutting old, traditional and insanely expensive methods.
3) Even if people with resources and ability were motivated, and people were somewhat more open-minded, I’m still not entirely sure a significantly less expensive shoe could be produced that would perform well enough for people to want to switch.
There is a company [Gaynor Minden] that came up with an alternative way of making shoes that, according to their website, last 3-5 times as long as other shoes. They have had moderate success in gaining a solid customer base in the professional dance world, but haven’t turned things upside down by any means. For one, their shoes are still $75 a pair, and I would guess the shoe life is closer to 2-3 times as long as normal shoes. One problem is that their use of plastic in the shoe construction (because it is stronger and more durable than traditional glue, fabric & leather components), causes the shoes to be dangerously slippery once the fabric (or suede) outer covering wears off. Plastic used in the sole of the shoe can also be exposed, threatening injury to dancers’ feet.
Perhaps more significantly, many dancers simply don’t like the look and feel of the shoes. This sounds kind of petty, but given the incredible strain the shoes and bodies are clearly under, differences in materials actually make a big difference in function. As the quote mentioned, the most popular shoes are probably Freeds. Up until several years ago, all of these shoes were handmade. Each cobbler had a specific ‘mark’ that he/she stamped on the sole, and different aspects of the shoe could be customized. But even within the same class of shoe (i.e. same model, size, specifications…), differences between makers (cobblers) were fairly evident. Now (as far as I know) they’ve streamlined things to cut costs and I don’t know if specific maker requests are possible anymore.
I think part of the problem may in fact be cultural. Ballet is highly traditional, with strictly codified ways of interacting, etc. There are layers and layers of emotional, psychological, and relational oddities that make it it’s own world where logic and supply/demand don’t always hold sway. That’s not to say people are stupid and blind, but just that there are some underlying barriers there that may not be apparent to the general public. Even more than that, though, is motivation. Dancers want to achieve the highest degree of technical and artistic perfection possible, and will do/use whatever best helps them move forward in that. Nobody does it for the money, and while money is always a concern, the last thing the dancers would be motivated to compromise is their shoes – the only real piece of equipment they use other than their bodies. The fit, feel, and function are incredibly important and even subtle changes aren’t taken lightly. By the time someone goes professional it’s not too likely they’ll be interested in experimenting very much.
Sorry this was probably way more detailed than you were looking for, but maybe it’ll help flesh out the issue a little more.
said Alexis
at 2:25am on Monday
Well, I need a nap now. Thanks.
said Charlie
at 10:01am on Monday
Reminds me of how the NBA wanted to change the official basketball last year; away from leather (the “traditional” method, that yielded an “inconsistent” basketball in weight, texture, etc); and tried to introduce that synthetic thing. Sometimes its more about “feel” and tradition than efficiency and new design.
said Paul
at 10:19am on Monday
There are actually new shoes that are made from a special kind of plastic. But they are not traditional and do not work for some people in the field.
said Ethan Bodnar
at 8:16am on Sunday
Traditional shoes mold themselves to a dancer’s foot. They came in different strengths and stiffnesses, and are very customize-able. A dancer will “break in” the shoes, getting them shaped exactly to her foot and dancing style because the glue and fabric will soften from the heat and moisture of wear and then re-stiffen. A dancer can shave the edges of the leather sole, tear out the inner sole, darn the toe–or not. A dancer will have shoes set aside for certain roles. A soft, almost worn-out pair for a role with lots of jumps. A newer, stiffer pair for a role with many poses and turns on pointe. For Swan Lake, the star will wear a harder pair of shoes for act 2. Believe me, if there were a cheaper way to get these results ballet companies would LOVE it!
said R. Joyner
at 11:07am on Friday